Its fucking bullshit and every terrorist knows all they have to do is claim mistreatment and the bleeding heart libertards will come to their rescue. Its sad , because the terrorists know we are weak and will use our own weakness against us.
Pretty sad actually

Being in the Army JAG Corps (and a former infantryman and scout), I always get a big kick out of the neo-con armchair warriors who think that kicking ass and taking names is all there is to this war... War is the physical extension of political power, and the key word there is not "power" but "political." Since we're at least *supposed* to be the good guys, that means we play by rules we set for ourselves, that we'd like the enemy to follow, too, but that we state from the outset that we'll follow regardless. It's what makes us difference from the thugs, criminals, and terrorists we're fighting - a moral and ethical code that governs how we fight.

For the armchair generals who'd like us to kick in every local's head we happen across, can you consider for a moment the logical extreme of such "weapons free" behavior? As it is, for every ignorant mistake made that results in a local's medieval sensitivities being offended (e.g. shooting Korans/Qu'rans, throwing puppies, raping local girls, etc.), we create a new crop of insurgents willing to die for virgins/raisins in order to avenge the insult. Were we to let slip the puppies of war, were we to discard the rules we've been the driving force behind establishing, we'd create even more enemies than we currently have bullets for.

Back on point...

The SEALs were afforded Captain's Mast/Nonjudicial Punishment. THEY TURNED IT DOWN. Their ego, for whatever reason, decided they'd rather be tried by a military judge, perhaps a panel of commissioned officers and senior noncommissioned officers, in order to dispose of their alleged misconduct.

If we pretend for a moment that the officer administering the nonjudicial punishment was an O-5 or higher (likely, given the nature of the situation), the maximum punishment these enlisted men would face would be:

Reduction (E-6 to E-5 max, or E-5 to E-4 max);
Forfeiture of 1/2 of one month's pay for two months;
Restriction for up to 60 days or 45 days if combined with Extra Duty;
Extra Duty for up to 45 days;
Written or Oral Reprimand.

That's all independent of the number of charges levied against them. One charge, ten charges, same maximum punishment.

The SEALs' egos got in the way, though. So, instead of the above punishment maximum, they'd now be facing years in prison, federal convictions, reductions to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a punitive discharge (dishonorable or bad-conduct). I could cite the max punishments for each charge, but I don't have my Manual for Courts-Martial here in my quarters with me (it's at the office).

Bottom line, those of you who think these poor, helpless men are being given such a raw deal - THEY ASKED FOR IT. Now shut your cockholsters, keep your opinions under lock and key, and let the people who know the real details (and who don't have to guess at them from the safety of their couches) do their jobs...

From what I understand, they had the ****-head insurgent in custody. Then they decided to give him a beating; they didn't beat his ass and fatten his lip while they were catching him. Then they tried to cover it up and hide the details once they'd been found out. None of that screams "silent professional" to me. They're just behaving like a bunch of unruly bullies, and that's not what we're supposed to be about. We're Americans, and though we fall short of the mark on a regular basis, we still aspire to be better than that, better than our enemies, better than everyone else. These punks failed to do that, and instead they let their emotions overwhelm their professionalism. They were given the option of administrative punishment, but they wanted their day in court. Now they're going to get it, and if they get ass-hammered for their troubles, too fucking bad. I bet they'd wish someone would offer them the Captain's Mast again...

See ya in the showers, convicts! Hope that federal conviction for roughing someone up matters to the murderers and rapists you'll be bunking with!

I'm telling you to shut the **** up to save your life, you fuckwit. You're wrong and you're being absolutely fucking retarded.

Now, apologize and shut the **** up.

Let's see, I bring up something I read about in Vietnam war history books. Maybe I'm wrong. But then I ask for more details so that maybe I can learn something more realistic, or hear someone's firsthand account that contradicts conventional wisdom. Either way, the community stands to benefit from the discussion.

You're like some high school kid who chimes in trying to ride on the coat tails of some popular kid who gets mad at some other kid.

Let's see, I bring up something I read about in Vietnam war history books. Maybe I'm wrong. But then I ask for more details so that maybe I can learn something more realistic, or hear someone's firsthand account that contradicts conventional wisdom. Either way, the community stands to benefit from the discussion.

You're like some high school kid who chimes in trying to ride on the coat tails of some popular kid who gets mad at some other kid.

Not everyone cares about your iPenis, though.

The question you asked was in bad taste. I think this is what Sirc is trying to say.

Being in the Army JAG Corps (and a former infantryman and scout), I always get a big kick out of the neo-con armchair warriors who think that kicking ass and taking names is all there is to this war... War is the physical extension of political power, and the key word there is not "power" but "political." Since we're at least *supposed* to be the good guys, that means we play by rules we set for ourselves, that we'd like the enemy to follow, too, but that we state from the outset that we'll follow regardless. It's what makes us difference from the thugs, criminals, and terrorists we're fighting - a moral and ethical code that governs how we fight.

For the armchair generals who'd like us to kick in every local's head we happen across, can you consider for a moment the logical extreme of such "weapons free" behavior? As it is, for every ignorant mistake made that results in a local's medieval sensitivities being offended (e.g. shooting Korans/Qu'rans, throwing puppies, raping local girls, etc.), we create a new crop of insurgents willing to die for virgins/raisins in order to avenge the insult. Were we to let slip the puppies of war, were we to discard the rules we've been the driving force behind establishing, we'd create even more enemies than we currently have bullets for.

Back on point...

The SEALs were afforded Captain's Mast/Nonjudicial Punishment. THEY TURNED IT DOWN. Their ego, for whatever reason, decided they'd rather be tried by a military judge, perhaps a panel of commissioned officers and senior noncommissioned officers, in order to dispose of their alleged misconduct.

If we pretend for a moment that the officer administering the nonjudicial punishment was an O-5 or higher (likely, given the nature of the situation), the maximum punishment these enlisted men would face would be:

Reduction (E-6 to E-5 max, or E-5 to E-4 max);
Forfeiture of 1/2 of one month's pay for two months;
Restriction for up to 60 days or 45 days if combined with Extra Duty;
Extra Duty for up to 45 days;
Written or Oral Reprimand.

That's all independent of the number of charges levied against them. One charge, ten charges, same maximum punishment.

The SEALs' egos got in the way, though. So, instead of the above punishment maximum, they'd now be facing years in prison, federal convictions, reductions to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a punitive discharge (dishonorable or bad-conduct). I could cite the max punishments for each charge, but I don't have my Manual for Courts-Martial here in my quarters with me (it's at the office).

Bottom line, those of you who think these poor, helpless men are being given such a raw deal - THEY ASKED FOR IT. Now shut your cockholsters, keep your opinions under lock and key, and let the people who know the real details (and who don't have to guess at them from the safety of their couches) do their jobs...

From what I understand, they had the ****-head insurgent in custody. Then they decided to give him a beating; they didn't beat his ass and fatten his lip while they were catching him. Then they tried to cover it up and hide the details once they'd been found out. None of that screams "silent professional" to me. They're just behaving like a bunch of unruly bullies, and that's not what we're supposed to be about. We're Americans, and though we fall short of the mark on a regular basis, we still aspire to be better than that, better than our enemies, better than everyone else. These punks failed to do that, and instead they let their emotions overwhelm their professionalism. They were given the option of administrative punishment, but they wanted their day in court. Now they're going to get it, and if they get ass-hammered for their troubles, too fucking bad. I bet they'd wish someone would offer them the Captain's Mast again...

See ya in the showers, convicts! Hope that federal conviction for roughing someone up matters to the murderers and rapists you'll be bunking with!

^

While this post won't be popular to many, it is right.

You people that have lived under the UCMJ should know that US forces, like many others around the world, are held to a higher standard.

Better all around if the "insurgent" had been killed in actual battle.

Being in the Army JAG Corps (and a former infantryman and scout), I always get a big kick out of the neo-con armchair warriors who think that kicking ass and taking names is all there is to this war... War is the physical extension of political power, and the key word there is not "power" but "political." Since we're at least *supposed* to be the good guys, that means we play by rules we set for ourselves, that we'd like the enemy to follow, too, but that we state from the outset that we'll follow regardless. It's what makes us difference from the thugs, criminals, and terrorists we're fighting - a moral and ethical code that governs how we fight.

For the armchair generals who'd like us to kick in every local's head we happen across, can you consider for a moment the logical extreme of such "weapons free" behavior? As it is, for every ignorant mistake made that results in a local's medieval sensitivities being offended (e.g. shooting Korans/Qu'rans, throwing puppies, raping local girls, etc.), we create a new crop of insurgents willing to die for virgins/raisins in order to avenge the insult. Were we to let slip the puppies of war, were we to discard the rules we've been the driving force behind establishing, we'd create even more enemies than we currently have bullets for.

Back on point...

The SEALs were afforded Captain's Mast/Nonjudicial Punishment. THEY TURNED IT DOWN. Their ego, for whatever reason, decided they'd rather be tried by a military judge, perhaps a panel of commissioned officers and senior noncommissioned officers, in order to dispose of their alleged misconduct.

If we pretend for a moment that the officer administering the nonjudicial punishment was an O-5 or higher (likely, given the nature of the situation), the maximum punishment these enlisted men would face would be:

Reduction (E-6 to E-5 max, or E-5 to E-4 max);
Forfeiture of 1/2 of one month's pay for two months;
Restriction for up to 60 days or 45 days if combined with Extra Duty;
Extra Duty for up to 45 days;
Written or Oral Reprimand.

That's all independent of the number of charges levied against them. One charge, ten charges, same maximum punishment.

The SEALs' egos got in the way, though. So, instead of the above punishment maximum, they'd now be facing years in prison, federal convictions, reductions to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a punitive discharge (dishonorable or bad-conduct). I could cite the max punishments for each charge, but I don't have my Manual for Courts-Martial here in my quarters with me (it's at the office).

Bottom line, those of you who think these poor, helpless men are being given such a raw deal - THEY ASKED FOR IT. Now shut your cockholsters, keep your opinions under lock and key, and let the people who know the real details (and who don't have to guess at them from the safety of their couches) do their jobs...

From what I understand, they had the ****-head insurgent in custody. Then they decided to give him a beating; they didn't beat his ass and fatten his lip while they were catching him. Then they tried to cover it up and hide the details once they'd been found out. None of that screams "silent professional" to me. They're just behaving like a bunch of unruly bullies, and that's not what we're supposed to be about. We're Americans, and though we fall short of the mark on a regular basis, we still aspire to be better than that, better than our enemies, better than everyone else. These punks failed to do that, and instead they let their emotions overwhelm their professionalism. They were given the option of administrative punishment, but they wanted their day in court. Now they're going to get it, and if they get ass-hammered for their troubles, too fucking bad. I bet they'd wish someone would offer them the Captain's Mast again...

See ya in the showers, convicts! Hope that federal conviction for roughing someone up matters to the murderers and rapists you'll be bunking with!

remember the Haditha Marines , John Murtha and you would get along real well